Don’t-Walk-Run to this outstanding overview of the dispute between CNBC and the blogging community by Real Property Alpha:

“So let’s get this straight.  Members of the televised media are now resorting to taking on bloggers in order to draw attention to themselves.  It’s sort of like picking a fight with the biggest bully on the block, except the biggest bully on the block in this case might be a semi-professional and anonymous member of the media that is using Blogspot domain name.  A CNBC host, picking a fight with a blogger that is using a pre-made blogging service.

I’m still letting that sink in.

This post isn’t about the movement of information online and into sources that are democratic, semi-amateur, and totally beyond the control of the “powers that be”.  This post is about the growing influence of that content.  The really good bloggers are growing their online audiences every day.”

That’s a great summation. There’s more details at RPA.

I would point out that the disagreement between reads a bit like an echo of the Jon Stewart / James Cramer feud — but that was between two cable outlets.

There used to be a rule: “Don’t pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel.” The updated version should be not to pick fights with people who don’t even have to pay for the ink — they spill electrons and pixels by the billions — and they are practically free.

TV vs Bloggers? Its kind of odd — and yet the bloggers seem to be winning . . .


The Dennis Kneale Correction ! (July 18th, 2007)

The New Financial Media
John Reeder
Real Property Alpha, August 2nd, 2009

Category: Financial Press, Weblogs

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

45 Responses to “New Financial Media Scrum: Bloggers vs TV”

  1. TV vs Bloggers? Its kind of odd — and yet the bloggers seem to be winning . . .

    Of course the bloggers are winning. They aren’t corporate whores and know-nothings like Gasparino or the Money Honey. Bloggers, the good ones, haven’t sold out their credibility and reputation.

  2. constantnormal says:

    ” — and yet the bloggers seem to be winning …”

    The alternative way to look at that is that the TV folks, accustomed to decades of dumbing down their content for a perceived audience of idiots, is losing, as viewers depart the one-way dialog of TV for the discourse of the web.

    Perhaps the TV audiences are not entirely idiots after all.

  3. constantnormal says:

    “are losing”, not “is losing” — I apologize to every grammar teacher I’ve ever had the privilege of being instructed by.

  4. Aeolus says:

    BWA HA HA!

    I’ve tuned out the fatuous financial blowhards on TV.

    I can get far better information by following the Big Picture and several other financial blogs, which, unlike the journamalists, link to their sources and include discussion as an important part of the product they offer.

    I feel the same way about the cable news networks, which seem to get worse by the day.

  5. Thor says:

    Will be fascinating to watch how this evolves – what, if anything, the news stations will do to adjust. . . .

  6. Transor Z says:

    His on air rants are extremely perishable, while the blogosphere’s counter assault gets indexed by Google and results in “Dennis Kneale Idiot” becoming the #3 Google Suggest phrase if you start typing Dennis Kneale.


  7. Pool Shark says:


    “Dennis Kneale Idiot” is now the #2 Google Suggest phrase…

  8. Transor Z says:

    Barry, I thought you were going to post something on this topic from the teaser you provided about a week ago?

  9. Its_Science says:

    The bloggers won the first time I watched CNBC. And I hadn’t even read the blogs at that point…

  10. call me ahab says:

    “Members of the televised media are now resorting to taking on bloggers in order to draw attention to themselves.”

    bad move- the attention will be all the wrong kind- making you look like a complete fucktard- look at Cramer after taking on Jon Stewart-

    not quite the same- but gives you the idea

  11. says:

    Believing cable news is like believing in Santa-Claus, the Tooth Ferry or GDP.

    I’ll take my data, accurate, sliced and diced and well explained from the best 25 bloggers – of which Barry is one.

    Take care

  12. mcrcr4 says:

    Don’t fight with anyone who has less to lose than you.

    Best regards,

  13. VennData says:

    The problem with CNBC is its success. It was once a very profitable infotainment deliverer. Then, after delivering so many ideas – some good – the investors that took away working investment models don’t need them as much. The ones they’ve failed are lost.

    Adding people like Dennis Kneale (a one-note commentator) or a Charlie Gasparino (whose long-winded “insight” into Wall Street internal politics isn’t tradable) won’t help them get their audience back.

    They need more sophisticated commentary. Investing is an arms race. More Faber, Less fluff, and Cramer needs to stop getting played by people like Dykstra and Farrell…. playing up “the Street” etc… for his market.

  14. CTX says:

    - Ministry of Propaganda- Joseph Goebbels…This is what our media is like, nothing but MIS-INFORMATION…..

  15. manhattanguy says:

    My brain cells stay active from reading (1) Blogs such as this, 2) Books and 3) The Economist magazine) than watching the idiot box. I got off that drug 2 years ago.

  16. StatArb says:

    Charlie Gasparino would agree with you !?!?!?!?

  17. Marcus Aurelius says:

    TV News? Cronkite just died — that leaves them with nobody credible (financial news or otherwise).

    The bloggers are winning because credible blogs (those that don’t ban participation based on differences of opinion) take constant criticism from their readers by virtue of their comments sections — if they print BS, they get bitch slapped by facts and/or have their logic torn apart. Broadcast and traditional print news don’t get much feedback on their “stories,” so they continue their fact free pseudo-journalism — losing viewers/readers in droves along the way, and all the time wondering why. Anyone who reads news/financial blogs knows what BS the MSM are peddling.

    Nonetheless, about a quarter of the population believe what they are told by traditional media:

    On a related note: I have a family friends that are a very high middle class couple (with aspirations/pretensions, but fading). Husband and wife are lobbyists — very sophisticated in communications and savvy enough to be able to switch teams (from liberal to conservative, Republican to Democrat) without missing losing clients (although, with their aforementioned aspirations, I believe they are truly hardcore Republicans of the Newt Gingrich/Grover Norquist variety). Over dinner a couple of weeks ago, she said that she and her husband relied on Jim Cramer for their investment strategy (which includes condos in Miami). I nearly dropped dead in my mashed potatoes. Some people will believe the party line regardless of the reality that surrounds them. I’m seriously wondering if I can even relate to these folks anymore (hell, I don’t know if I can even make eye contact).

  18. dead hobo says:

    I remember last year when a couple of the ladies on CNBC fretted openly and frequently about the inequities of stopping naked shorts from screwing everyone over. They detested the new regulations. At that point, they all lost credibility with me. They were just mouthpiece shills for their advertisers and parent. It must really bite that, a year later, they are down well over 25% of their viewers. HA HA HA. I was right. They’re even worse now. Although I watched them a little after the ratings came out and they look like they’re eating humble pie that someone first wiped their ass with.

  19. jc says:

    I’m sure you’re testing us by ending your sentence with a preposition.

    “are losing”, not “is losing” — I apologize to every grammar teacher I’ve ever had the privilege of being instructed by.

  20. Sekar says:

    Looks like a last ditch attempt to rescue the 30% drop in ratings. CNBC went off my radar about 12 years ago when they when Neil Cavuto started saying “information superhighway” in every segment. The fact that someone as clownish as Dennis Kneale, who can’t string together a sentence himself, is on air tells you CNBC doesn’t really want to hire anyone credible. And they wonder why ratings are down…..

  21. manhattanguy says:

    Where is the almighty CNBC Sucks? Haven’t seen him in a while :)

  22. cvienne says:

    So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself,
    you can win a thousand battles without a single loss.

    If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.

    If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

    The Art of War

  23. I wrote something similar this morning, but it’s the 3rd installment of a series chronicling the fight club battle between Kneale and Zero Hedge:

    “Fight Club: Zero Hedge and Matt Taibbi Defeat CNBC and Goldman Sachs”

    I think it’s important to add the Taibbi dimension to this whole thing because people like Meagan McArdle pulled some serious Kneale on Taibbi too. As I said in the post:

    “As a businessman who runs a financial media site, I think CNBC’s new Jerry Springer strategy seems like the desperate avenue taken by an eyeball-magnet which needs increasingly shocking tricks to make the audience look back a few more times while permanently emigrating to more meaningful pastures. And, as with Lot’s wife, those looking back are only receiving crap that will turn them into salt.”

    I also ended by linking to Barry’s excellent article about the future of financial TV …

  24. call me ahab says:


    CNBC Sucks retires and un-retires from this blog pretty regularly- however- takes a bit of time before he reappears sometimes

  25. OkieLawyer says:

    Off topic:

    (And somewhat directed at the Libertarians on this board)

    The Unconscionable Math (Health insurance rescission policy to maximize profits)

  26. gordo365 says:

    Dead Hobo – my dyslexia and ADD kicked in as I was scanning your post – and I had to re-read after my mind mixed up the 1st sentence about

    CNBC… Naked… ladies… openly… dr(st)opped… shorts… frequently… screwing… fretted… inequity…

    Apologies :)


  27. Barry:

    Thanks for reminding me why I don’t have cable TV (or subscribe to any paid form of media)…

    “He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.” ~ Michel de Montaigne

  28. “Never pick a fight with people who only get more eyeballs every time they shine a light on controversy”

  29. jc says:

    Tax receipts down 18%, personal IT down 22%, corporate IT down 50%+

    With continuing job losses this only gets worse, 20% for the entire year? The recession is over, now it’s time to start the depression or finesse it with a de facto devaluation of the dollar? CNBC has us lost in their smoke & mirrors, this drecession still has legs!

  30. Onlooker from Troy says:

    It’s really pathetic, and they have no idea (apparently) just how bad this makes them look, and how it just reinforces the public’s poor opinion of them. Eventually their viewership will shrink to just “the choir”, and they’ll be just another echo chamber.

  31. alfred e says:

    Once again I got in late. Summer in Eugene. Bar hopping.

    I have one simple question to ask before I go off.

    Who is behind the web site CNBC SUCKS? Is that Dennis Kneale?

  32. hrux says:

    AT & Cvienne- another link to Corey Rosenbloom, CMT and his forecast using Elliott Wave charting. Corey called for a minimum SP target of 1,000 months ago and posts his two likely scenarios.

  33. Pat G. says:

    My two biggest pet peeves regarding CNBC are the obvious; the cheerleaders. And that they trot out the same “experts/analysts” to discuss the same subjects. This is an insult to my intelligence as a variety of perspectives exercises my brain. In addition, I can only exchange ideas with others on the Internet in a blog/forum such as this. Eventually, I see CNBC going the same way as most newspapers. Their format will become obsolete.

  34. Tom K says:

    I hope everyone realizes this “media scrum” is mutually beneficially to both CNBC and their blogging nemesis.

  35. tawm says:

    Came back to the US in 1998 and never signed up for CATV. Over the air TV was fine for PBS (before Hillary’s friends nuked Rukeyser) and the occasional MadTV. Just a few weeks ago, the VHF analog signal tranmissions ended (to allow the spectrum to be re-used for more telecom services), and now there’s only UHF digital over the air TV. However, as I’m 40+ miles from NYC, and UHF signals don’t travel as far as VHF, I receive even fewer channels. That’s fine, as it’s just less crap; I rarely watch anything on TV. Mass media programming is a vast wasteland. The networks lost me years ago. Their “news” content is laughable. Screw them.


    BR: Hillary’s frind’s nuked Rukeyser? I am unfamiliar with this line of thinking . . . Please enlighten

  36. Andy T says:

    The moment CNBC took on the “blogosphere,” the bloggers had won.

  37. contrabandista13 says:

    In this fight, if that’s what you want to call it……

    I’ll put my money on the fat kid….

    The CNBC tea baggers ain’t got a chance… That pinch faced, tea bagging, douche bag Kneale is going to get F’d in the A. I can’t watch that station because every time I see him or Gasparino, I feel like throwing up…

    So far as GE goes, I’m just waiting for a good opportunity to short it.



  38. BG says:

    Scrum, Oh really? I have quit watching that silly channel for the most part.

    There is no way in my good conscious, I could ever commit any serious money to any financial market thinking for a moment that any lie or deception from that crowd had anything to do with it.

    Last night, while I was channel surfing, they had up a “10-box” on Kneale’s comedy show. What a joke! CNBC starts off fairly anchored in thought at 4AM Eastern; but by the time they wind down their programming in the Evening, they are strictly financial entertainment. What a shame. They are the whores of Wall Street.

    There’s just hardly anything there you can make an informed financial decision upon. You might as well get your information from a compulsive liar. Their views are so skewed toward Wall Street, they should drop the ‘C’ for “Consumer” or is it ‘C’ for “Collusion” with the financial elites?

  39. [...] New Financial Media Scrum; Bloggers vs TV…..-bloggers/ [...]

  40. tawm says:

    One of Hillary’s friends Pat Mitchell became head of PBS; she was part of a cabal that pushed out Rukeyser in favor of a more “progressive” Fortune format that er – somehow didn’t focus mostly on older, white male. Rukeyser told his audience on the air that he was “ambushed” and being pressured, and was immediately fired from WSW. While Colvin and Gibbs were very good, the unceremonious dumping of Rukeyser sealed WSW’s fate, and probably worsened his health.


    Published: March 24, 2005

    Wall Street Week,” which became one of the most-watched programs on public television over 35 years, has been canceled. Maryland Public Television, the program’s producer, and…will be broadcast for the last time on June 24. The cancellation comes three years after the program’s creator and longtime host, Louis Rukeyser, was removed as part of an effort to attract a bigger, younger audience.

    What had been “Wall Street Week with Louis Rukeyser” became a joint production with Fortune magazine and was renamed “Wall Street Week with Fortune.” Since the program’s reintroduction, its hosts have been Geoffrey Colvin, the editorial director of Fortune, and Karen Gibbs, who was previously a senior business correspondent for Fox News.

    The split with Mr. Rukeyser was acrimonious, upsetting longtime viewers. After Mr. Rukeyser’s ouster, 22 analysts and money managers who made regular appearances alongside him said they would not take part in a program without him.

    Mr. Rukeyser, who spoke bluntly of his anger at being removed, began a program on CNBC called “Louis Rukeyser’s Wall Street” that competed with his former program. The CNBC program ended in December after Mr. Rukeyser became ill.

  41. tawm says:

    P.S. “News coverage of the conflict highlighted PBS’s desire for a younger audience, with Rukeyser implying during the King interview that public TV wanted an MTV version of his show. But PBS President Pat Mitchell said in a Current interview she’s more interested in ethnic and economic diversity than relative youth.”

    Consuelo Mack does an admirable job with her current PBS show “Wealthtrack,” but it’s hard to escape PBS’s antipathy towards capitalism and independent investing as not being very important. The show does not get a regular slot, and often gets pre-empted.

    I even discussed the scheduling issue with WNET’s president at a fund raiser, and was surprised at the clear disdain he had for the topic (investing and markets) — it just wasn’t important for his audience (the main PBS broadcaster for the NYC metro area!)

  42. wunsacon says:

    >> One of Hillary’s friends Pat Mitchell became head of PBS; she was part of a cabal that pushed out Rukeyser in favor of a more “progressive” Fortune format

    Maybe this is less political than you suspect.

    In one of the books Barry recommended, the author writes about the recommendations of the analysts on Rukeyser. I don’t remember the exact track record had you invested in a Rukeyser “model portfolio”. But, what I took away was “not good”. In either 1999 or 2000, Rukeyser unceremoniously dumps the only bearish analyst.

    Maybe PBS doesn’t think it knows enough to pick a good show host, one that helps people do well in the market, and/or figures it should leave economics matters to other networks.

  43. tawm says:

    I think the conservative, long-term buy and hold equities approach that Rukeyser and his commentators recommended was appropriate for his mass audience vs the alternatives. Most importantly, it helped create an investor class in America — a group of people and voters who not only invested in financial instruments but believed in the markets, and saw the benefits in keeping out undue government interference. Perhaps Rukeyser’s show’s direct investment advice record is not stellar, but the value of his contribution to our society’s support of capital markets was inestimable. If PBS doesn’t see fit to help educate and provide its audience with a better understanding of markets, politicians can continue to attack — divide and conquer the haves and have-nots, all the while increasing moral hazard.

  44. tawm says:

    my comments 3 above in response to
    @BR: Hillary’s frind’s nuked Rukeyser? I am unfamiliar with this line of thinking . . . Please enlighten

  45. StatArb says:

    CNBC ratings drop is almost as bad as Keith Olbermann’s 30% drop and Rachel Maddow’s 65% drop since January